This is an archive of past discussions with User:DVdm. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I am using the editing feature on Wikipedia for the first time. My attempts to edit the Calvin cycle page were repeatedly reverted. I would like an explanation, if I may.
I read the Wikipedia Calvin cycle page, and was struck by the fact that between Refs. 1 and 2, the entire body of Calvin et al's original papers on their finding of the light reaction in photosynthesis were omitted. I.e., Refs. 1 and 2 were the sole sources for the Wikipedia presentation of the Calvin cycle.
I inserted the omitted body of original papers by Calvin et al, which refuted the existence of the Calvin cycle in photosynthesis. Apparently these papers were not known to you as Editing User.
I received auto messages stating, first that someone else had edited during the time I was doing my edits and, then, that two of my external links were not allowed. So I removed them all, and re-introduced the edits. Unfortunately, as a result, I received your warning of possibly being blocked for being disruptive.
All of my indicated changes were referenced to reputable journal publications, including Calvin et al's original publications in the permanent literature. I neither intended to be a "vandal," nor "disruptive."
As for another User's (Schmidt?) question, "What is NSFfunding.com," the answer is: NSFfunding.com, a U.S.-based organization under contract with the Internal Revenue Service, is authorized by the United States to detect the use of the Calvin cycle as a means for penetrating the U.S. Treasury. See, The Calvin Cycle Website.
Therefore, I'd appreciate your letting me know why you reverted my edits.
P.S. After I communicted this talk writeup, I noticed your attribution to me of the headline thing on "Kumbaya." I did not introduce the unsigned "Kumbaya." I am new to all this. Forgive me for having made some inadvertent mistakes, if any.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankkfong (talk • contribs)
Hi, I am sure that your contribution ([1], [2], [3]) does not amount to vandalism. The possibly disruptive nature of your third edit, was that you seemed to ignore the warnings on your talk page and re-inserted the content without further comment. It looks like you might have (1) a conflict of interest, and (2) that you are inserting your own orginal research, some of the cited sources being primary sources, whereas we generally prefer secondary sources. It might be a good idea to carefully read some of the articles to which you were pointed in the messages you received on your talk page: every blue link points to the relevant policy/guideline article. If you would like to add some content to an article like you did to Calvin cycle, and which is subsequently questioned, the way to go is to propose it on the article's talk page first, to see what the other contributors think about it and to reach a consensus. As for the addition of your signature, I did not do that. It was automatically generated by a bot. Please sign all talk messages with four tildes (~~~~), and when opening a new thread on a talk page, please provide a section header, as is explained in the talk page guidelines. I have inserted a header for you. DVdm (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep up the good work!
Petrb has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
S.E. Cupp
I have tried to add a single line to the S.E. Cupp page, but it continues to be removed. I was told it needed a reference, so I provided one. The line was still deleted. The line is not of opinion, but is an honest assessment of her after reading article after article (I can't reference them all) and her book "Losing Our Religion." I would like to know why this is continuously removed. 64.191.172.126 (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Just letting you know that I have mentioned edits by you here. It seems right to alert you about this on your talk page rather than discuss you behind your back. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
An editor and I are trying to come up with a way to modify the Inertial frame of reference definition. It currently uses a paraphrasing from Landau and Lifshitz. Based on discussion on the talk page I guess people want to simplify it, or at least have a simplier lead in which is then followed by a stricter definition. Since you were involved in previous discussion, I was wondering if you could please stop by and share opinions on how to word it? FlyingBob (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
There is an inconsistency between the definition of the Pochhammer symbol and the series expansion of an Hypergeometric function. I changed the index convention in the Hypergeometric Function to make it consistent with the Pochhammer symbol article. Why was this reverted? 130.245.203.227 (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Had you given an edit summary, I probably would have checked more closely, but I do owe you an apology. I have reverted my undo and replaced the warning on your talk page with a welcome message. Sorry again and happy editing. DVdm (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, alas, maybe I should listen to the voices, hehehe, and comit mass murder, then I would get published, right?? By the way where do you live? lol, bye. 94.227.51.235 (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Windsor Star Page
Any reason why you refuse to allow accurate information on this particular entry? Why make an edit war out of something political/personal? This seems rather against the Wikipedia mission statement. I don't want to have to report you for vandalism. Daarlock (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello DVdm, just a quick note to say that although I think this edit of yours improved the article, it is not a good idea to use Huggle to revert good-faith edits; Huggle is solely for use in reverting vandalism. Regards, Skomorokh17:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) In defense of DVdm, the IP in question had a few minutes previously contributed such gems as this, this and this, so the assumption of good faith was wearing rather thin. I have in fact blocked the IP for 31 hours. Favonian (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Favonian—Btw, being tps-ed by you is an honour.
By the way, I have been wondering about this. If huggle is to be used to fight vandalism only, then why are there so many strictly non-vandalism edit summaries and revert reasons? For instance, when a user removes an AFD-tag, even in good faith, Huggle allows for a friendly first level warning about this with the revert-option "Removal of an AFD-tag". This is not vandalism, yet it is available. Why? Same goes for all the non-vandalism warnings. The wp:Huggle page says that "Huggle is an application for dealing with vandalism", but it does not say that it is for dealing with vandalism only. DVdm (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Another example: I did this revert (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Chauhanpeeyushpc (talk) addition of unsourced content (HG)"), combined with this friendly warning. This was clearly not a vandalistic edit, yet it was reverted and warned with Huggle, exactly in the same way as it would have been done manually. I think that this is conclusive proof that Huggle is not a tool for vandalism only. DVdm (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
More on wp:TW: "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes unless an appropriate edit summary is used." This clearly allows for undoing good-faith changes in content (and non-content) disputes, provided an appropriate edit summary is used, which is what I did—through Huggle's engine—in this edit of mine. So really, I think that Skomorokh is quite mistaken with the assertion that Huggle would be solely for use in reverting vandalism. DVdm (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks...
...for this. And I agree with you regarding the wise use of automated tools for good-faith edits. Unfortunately, on this exact topic Huggle has been proving problematic for me lately, as reported here. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Heh. I had a similar problem with Huggle a few times—nothing that couldn't be undone however. It obviously has a few bugs, just like just about every little piece of good software I have ever uses and, perhaps, written. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Music of the Baroque
Hi. I saw you tagged Music of the Baroque for speedy deletion as G7 (author requested deletion). Where did the author request this? While the article is certainly a COI, I don't see any evidence that they blanked the page or otherwise asked for it to be deleted. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any blanking in the edit history, all I see is the creator removing the {{New unreviewed article|source=ArticleWizard|date=January 2011}} template here. – ukexpat (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
(→Origin of the term natural logarithm: Don't need this unsourced derivaton here - it re-uses the variable x. Used more common approach - with source.)
I ask: What if I used z instead of x? The point is to provide more detail to aid people to understand the steps.
Also, what is wrong with unsourced derivations as long as the derivations are correct?
I think you should not have deleted the derivation I provided but your point about the use of x is well taken and substituting another variable, such as z, would help to avoid confusion with equation just above it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.30.11.1 (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Please put new messages at the bottom of talk pages, and sign them with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
You appear to have given an AFD deletion warning notice when you probably meant to give a removal of speedy deletion notice warning. You may want to swap the warning. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, noticed you helping revert the vandals on Doyle. I'd asked yesterday about protection for that page, as it's getting hit pretty hard. Seems like it could use some. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, kind editor, for the quick revert on my talk page! I saw the user's edit in Huggle, and you had removed it before I was even able to get to my page! EWikistTalk19:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. And thanks for the star :-) - By the way, I love the design of your user- and talk page. DVdm (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Good catch on the addition to Funkmaster Flex being a copyvio. I had searched for the text, but I couldn't find it as a copy. Where'd you find it—in case I need to know for future reference? —C.Fred (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Ha... Google is your friend and their nightmare. When you suspect something, just randomly search for a few long bits of the added text. The first search was a big hit already. I usually do a quick check when a newbie adds a structured—markupless and refless—piece of text. Happy hunting! - DVdm (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I was reverting this edit, but it seems that your revert got there first and mine killed yours. A Huggle fumble or a DVdm fumble? In the latter case, please accept my apologies. DVdm (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I reverted your revert, but it was pretty obvious that it was a mistake. Its fairly easy to tell the vandals from the common mistakes that happen from time to time.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what the issue is. I go to the games and know that Dan Lowson is our first choice keeper and I don't see how this is a controversial edit. Fergyc123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC).
Yes, I recognize them. I just don't like them very much, for i.m.o. they are useless for someone who wishes to verify most of the equations in the article. For example, take section Hypergeometric function#Special cases. How would you, using the current state of referencing, go about to check the equations in there? DVdm (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The lead of the article already displays a prominent note that I take to mean that general referencing in being used for uncontroversial knowledge presented in the body. From WP:SCICITE:
The verifiability criteria require that such statements be sourced so that in principle anyone can verify them. However, in many articles it is cumbersome to provide an in-line reference for every statement. In addition, such dense referencing can obscure the logical interdependence of statements. Therefore, in sections or articles that present well-known and uncontroversial information – information that is readily available in most common and obvious books on the subject – it is acceptable to give an inline citation for one or two authoritative sources (and possibly a more accessible source, if one is available) in such a way as to indicate that these sources can be checked to verify statements for which no other in-line citation is provided. These inline citations are often inserted either after the first sentence of a paragraph or after the last sentence of the paragraph; a single convention should be chosen for each article.
Yes, I know all this. But, again, how would you go about to check the equations in that particular section? Which book would you take from the list to actually verify the equations, and on what would you base your choice? - DVdm (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
What's the deal man? You keep wanting to keep in this insane language that says the radius of the earth is closer to the moon than it is to the center. It's possibly correct, but the pronoun confusion is so misleading that it should be scrapped altogether for a better explanation. Like the one I put in.
JCM83 (talk)JCM83, regarding the "tides" page.
you reverted one of the things i added. I dont see how it was unconstructive. I talked to a couple of my teachers and the principle and they congradulated me for doing all that work that no one took the time to do. I've also talked to some students and asked them if they liked it they said they did. They sended me a message to try it on the sandbox but i dont know want is that since im kinda new to this thing. You can come check out the work i did and put in ours school wikipedia page but got reverted here User talk:Guslb12,my user page. By the way its not just you who reverted it it was many people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guslb12 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
You clicked the wrong reason for revert (Huggle). Still, the IP is blocked, now, although the first edit today was only non-constructive, only the rest were vandalism. — Arthur Rubin(talk)17:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed I did. When I noticed my mistake, the IP was already blocked, so I decided not to bother—and it was a bit funny as well :-) Cheers - DVdm (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
ice cream
Hi .. my automated report feature is on the fritz ... I already gave the IP (ice cream article) a final warning some vandal edits ago. If you are automated, might I ask you to make the report? The IP is on a vandal rampage today. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello DVdm
Aghada is in fact known to many locals such as myself As "Andrew Meaghers Playboy Mansion".If you read the book "THROUGH THE MIST OF TIME" Memories of the past from Whitegate, Aghada, Saleen, Roches Point, Guileenetc.Compiled by Whitegate/Aghada Historical Society. You can have this verified.
Thanks for your concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.96.3 (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I that case you will have to cite the source with the edit, preferably in a way that other people can verify it. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, DVdm, wanted to thank you for your support when my article was nominated for deletion, It did get deleted, but now is up fore deletion review for an overturn at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_March_3#Mark_Boerebach . Just wondering if you could please assist to get it overturned as there seems to be enough sources. I don't want to touch the discussion any further, as for me it would be a conflict of interest situation. Thanks. Whitewater111 (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any idea what a 100,000 shape might be? The article states 100, 1,000, 10,000 and 1,000,000, but it doesn't state 100,000. (Please respond here, as my IP address may change.)--90.217.236.77 (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Tom Van Flandern . While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I was under the impression that my —even repeated— reinsertion of repeated removal (for the wrong reasons) of properly sourced relevant content would not be a form of edit warring. But I understand that there are some subtleties here. Thanks for your comment. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the article was tagged for deletion and therefore assumed that removing the tag was inappropriate. But I agree. Your solution is probably better. DVdm (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but in that case you should note that the deletion tag was a prod and anyone is allowed to remove prod tags. LadyofShalott13:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for reverting the strange chatter put on my talkpage. That sort of weirdness rattles me, and I appreciate your intervention very much. SteveStrummer (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
...for reverting the personal attack at my talk-page. I intend no interactions with this user, unless to delete any further rants. By the way, have you noticed the offending user's page claim of "8+" years? Meaning what, I wonder? Haploidavey (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
These shenanigans are continuing at both Talk:Hades and Davey's user page even after the final warning. Assuming you're an admin and can take action we peons cannot. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
1. Nuclear Transmutation of Stable and Radioactive Isotopes in Biological Systems
by Vladimir I. Vysotskii,
Alla A. Kornilova
ISBN : 978-81-8274-430-1 Publication Year: 2010
and
2. Nuclear Fusion and Transmutation of Isotopes in Biological Systems
by Vladimir I. Vysotskii
and Alla A. Kornilova Moscow, Peace, 2003
Vladimir I.Vysotskii : Kiev Shevchenko University, Kiev, Ukraine;
and
Alla A. Kornilova : Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
George Osahwa patent removed, why ?
Obtained in 1966-02-04 French Patent number FR1427109 titled "Fabrication d'aciers spéciaux par transmutation à faible énergie" 89.210.223.153 (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
You are right, these could have been OK. The problem was with your last edit, introducing a pointer to a questionable source (see wp:ELNO and wp:RS). Sorry for possibly having flushed the child with the bath water. I have restored the other edits. DVdm (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello DVdm. I saw your post at AN and I thought that I would let you know that you might put in a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection especially since more than one IP is being used. It is hard to say whether you will get quicker action at that noticeboard over the AN one. I hope that the situation gets resolved ASAP and thanks for your vigilance in taking care of that article. MarnetteD | Talk20:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Hah while I was making this post Sarek of Vulcan protected the article. Guess that answers the question about response time. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk20:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the article is still protected in the wrong version, and no admin is reacting. It seems that we have to wait the whole day, before it get unlocked again... --D.H (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
And my apologies for the sarcasm. I don't fully understand how this reference coding work so I seldom edit them, for now I just stick to grammar:)--Hodeken (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Definitely the same person. They do seem to move much more careful and slowly this time, but perhaps you could notify one of the blocking admins. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll keep one open too. DVdm (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I thought about it, as I knew Alison (talk·contribs) would have been happy to block him again. But that might just cause him to get a new IP and make him more difficult to track, whereas with his current slow progres he's easy enough to deal with. If you want to ask someone to block him I've no real objections though. 2 lines of K30312:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Well,you have to understand that i dont edit keeping in mind the person i admire but by the facts which atleast i believe are true.Before Newton there was no comprehensive system to connect both mathematics aand philosophy as it was called in his day.He,by his remarkable genius understood the intricate importance that lie between these two branches and developed the first comprehensive system that could be relied upon for further research.The reason he is considered one of the most influential men is that his works not only influenced the scientific community but also the way the general public could think of a problem and he is still the only one considered by both physicists and mathematicians as one of the greatest,if not,the greatest in their respective fields.The sources i have provided are some of the many things that shed some light on his subjects.And the people(like Hart,Hawking,......) may vary,but,the opinion of majority regarding Newton do not.Thank you.Hawker07 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I see you're trawling swiftly through pages for vandalism (great), and warned an IP for messing up an edit (inadvertent deletion of comments) a little harshly (not so great). This was just as the IP was coming to the table to discuss sourcing problems after getting rather irate at getting blocked for not discussing matters and edit warring. I'm not sure your warning is helpful in the circumstances.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I reacted to the 2nd removal of a contributor's talk page message, created with this edit, and removed with this edit, seven minutes after the anon was explicitly warned (by you) "to be careful not to delete other people's comments". So that was twice in a row, and i.m.o., taking into account their history, definitely worth at least a friendly first level warning. But perhaps I was mistaken, in which case I'd like to apologise. DVdm (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I completely see where you're coming from (recently blocked IP, already told not to remove comments). From my point of view, as the comment removed wasn't a significant one, the IP's tone had calmed down a lot, and another editor (me) was actively engaging, I would have stood off. It's a difference in judgement calls. I just wanted to register my concern about the warning (kind of on the IP's behalf) as I think (or sense) the IP might actually make a good contribution but has trust/paranoia issues, as his first few attempts at editing have been batted away. That and just in case you were going a bit too fast. All the best, VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, point taken. I'll leave this in your hands. Let's hope we don't lose a valuable potential contributor. Cheers and happy editing- DVdm (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
So, this little work i made could be considered as an "original research". Ok. But this could be considered differently to :) Is it possible to discuss about it?
As you have noticed, your addition of the animation to various articles has been reverted. I don't think it has a place on the Wikipedia. I'm sure it looks ok on your blog. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed. I can only repeat that I don't think it will find a place on the Wikipedia. This really is something to season a personal blog page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't know why but you seem to be appearing all over my watch list this last couple of days reverting, correcting and adding so have this mere bauble for all your hard work. All the best Khukri11:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
If you want to keep the talk on my page, that is fine, but I thought I should give you at least one heads up that I've replied to your comment.KlappCK (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, here, how is the content in question "negative", much less "unsourced"? If anything, it is undersourced.KlappCK (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
No worries about the preemptive warning on my talk page: mistakes happen and it becomes easy to jump to a conclusion when repeatedly reverting "bad" edits in BLP's.KlappCK (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
AfD template removal
Thought I'd ask since you used it - where in Huggle is the function to show this for the edit summary? Or did you just use a custom one? Calabe1992 (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
"If I have left a message on your talk page, please respond on your page. I will keep an eye on it."
1) I guess you've been too busy to keep that pledge, huh?
2) Why did you revert then update my userpage, when the article Talk page was the appropriate location?
I have no objection to this edit but I find the edit summary curious. As far as I know, Archimedes's is prounced "Ark-im-EED-eez-iz", five syllables, whereas Archimedes' is just four, the same as the man's name. --Trovatore (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hm, yes, you are correct. Indeed it can be pronounced that way — I had to say it out loud before my penny dropped. That was a bad edit summary indeed. Good catch! Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Reply To your message
Hello, I am a Campus Ambassador of Wikipedia India Education Program, I have to encourage them to start editing articles. It was not at all a random act. I am their Campus Ambassador. Mihir.khatwani (talk • contribs)
Could be, but i.m.o. Wikipedia XYZ Program Ambassadors should first have at least a basic idea how Wikipedia works. I don't think that this is the case. DVdm (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) DVdm I know how wikipedia works.I have given presentation on the working of wikipedia. Please checkout the WP:IEP page, you might not know about it, but wikipedia launched an Education Program similar to US and we are the volumteers co-ordinating the program in India. Every Lynch is an Online ambassador and I am a Campus Ambassador. I have like 60 students in my class and I need to encourage them to write articles, the only way to do it is post on their talk-pages and ask them to start editing, I hope you understand. Thanks for backing me up Mike ;). --Mihir.khatwani (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, please then have a close look at wp:talk page guidelines and specifically at wp:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages. Some basic rules are: (1) to put new messages at the bottom, (2) to use proper section headings, (3) to sign messages with four tildes (~~~~), and (4) never to remove (or replace) existing content from other peoples user talk pages. If you have a carefull read of these guidelines, the probability that someone mistakes your messages for vandalism will be much smaller. That is what happened with me anyway. Hope this helps. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry for that. Will not happen again. I removed the previous content on one of the user's page because as they are my students and I know them personally, and they are not so good at using Wikipedia and they get confused while viewing anything with a template. I will not do so then. Cheers. --Mihir.khatwani (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, please accept my apologies for the way I might have scared you. Feel free to remove my —now moot— messages from your user talk page, this is perfectly ok with the wp:TPG. Good luck with the project! DVdm (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Nahh! You are just a well wisher and a contributor for Wikipedia. I was not scared, we were trained for these kind of things, since most of the users are not aware for India Education Program so we will run into difficulties like these.Now most of the admins know us.And also if you are willing to contribute towards the Education program you can apply to be an online amabssador.Or help out some of the students at this IRC irc://irc.freenode.net/#wikipedia-en-classroom --Mihir.khatwani (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, I made a good edit on an article, another overzealous super-guy editor undid it and accused me of basically vandalizing the article, and then did some research and reverted the article to what I had changed. Then you come along and threaten to ban me? Get off your high horse, dude.
76.119.75.131 (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm just saying - if you had bothered to examine the situation rather than escalate it, much of this current situation wouldn't have happened. 76.119.75.131 (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
People being called "idiots" or "dumbasses" tend to be less inclined to examine situations on demand. Try to remember that, and you'll be able to collaborate here. DVdm (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
And here I thought that if a statement was true, it was allowed. Did they change the guidelines on that? The original admin was acting like an idiot. And he realized as much - that's why he reinstated my edit within a minute of reversing it. Maybe letting people police their own talk pages would solve some of this nonsense. 76.119.75.131 (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Anon76, please have a very careful look at wp:ETIQ and wp:AGF. When you immediately start calling someone who makes a possible mistake an "idiot", chances are that subsequent communication will be difficult, if not impossible. When you persist behaving like that, changes are that you end up blocked, so, trust me, do be very careful.
Right now, I haven't done anything really wrong yet. I made a quality edit, and stood by it when some power-hungry mod reverted it. All the drama would have been prevented if DA had simply apologized, rather than just increasing my warning level. 76.119.75.131 (talk) 10:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Have a more careful look at wp:ETIQ and wp:AGF. You have personally attacked two people. Next time you'll probably get blocked. That is how Wikipedia works. - DVdm (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
People who automatically revert edits made by IP users, without bothering to actually read them first, deserve to be attacked personally. 76.119.75.131 (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Judging by his lack of an apology, I have to believe that this was not an honest mistake. I understand "Assume good faith" but personally, if I had made a mistake like that in good faith, I'd have apologized. As he refuses to do this, I'm not sure that his reversion wasn't an act of vandalism. 76.119.75.131 (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If you hadn't called him an idiot in the first place, and had asked politely instead, he might have apologised. An apology is something to give — not something to demand. DVdm (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Well of course he would, as evidenced time and again on my talk page and elsewhere. When another editor gets abusive or rude I simply ignore them. 99/100 the issue resolves itself that way, in this case it clearly didn't. I am sorry about all the editor time that this molehill has taken up. Have a good night all. --Deadly∀ssassin11:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Oops, what I meant to say was "Well of course I would, as evidenced ..." which was intended to agree with your point above. --Deadly∀ssassin20:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Ignore and forget about it :-) - DVdm (talk)
Inappropriate deletion of an episode summary
Your issue with the episode summary for the third episode of Pan Am involved one misplaced letter you could clearly have removed yourself rather than remove the entire edit summary. That edit, which you made a second time even after it was reverted, was neither constructive nor helpful. If you were unable to make the change you wanted, you should have left a comment on the episodes talk page or after I reverted on mine, not removed the entire summary twice. I can think of no circumstances where so extreme an edit is a viable, appropriate option. Drmargi (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Drmargi, the original "They gals..." edit had no edit summary (which I could therefore not have removed, like you say), no source, was made by a first time anonymous IP, and sounded like wp:NOCLUE. So, assuming good faith, and having no idea what they possibly could have meant (gals?), I googled for the string "They gals" on the internet and found nothing usable, so I reverted it, asking "They gals N?" and making a little typo with that letter "N" at the end of my edit summary. I therefore don't think there was aything wrong with my first revert. As for the second instance, I undid your revert marking mine as vandalism (Rvv) which it was not, and which restored a clearly nonsensical edit. With that second revert I gave a very clear and precise edit summary: "Please replace "They gals" with a proper expression in English. Thank you." I didn't think that, with such an unambiguous edit summary, a talk page comment was needed, so I decided not to make one. And indeed apparently you took care of it a bit later. Thanks for that. On the other hand, I understand and appreciate your comment here, and perhaps indeed I should have come to your talk page and explain the first part of the comments I am writing now. I'm sorry for having upset you this way. DVdm (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
You recently reverted some external links added to this article by User:Bastien Sens-Méyé. I haven't undone your edit, but one or two of them looked as though they might (stress, might!) constitute valid sources. Since they're in French (which I can't speak beyond ordering coffee and croissants), I've encouraged Bastien to read WP:RS and consider whether any of them could be inserted as citations. No action required on your part, but I thought it best to let you know - don't come down on him too hard if he adds them back and you disagree; blame me instead!
Hi. I believe I undid the edit because I realized that there was another inline citation earlier in the sentence, and it looked inconsistent to have ono inside the sentence and one outside of it. In the end, I figured I'd better leave it for someone else :) --90.184.154.70 (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I wish to appeal my warning. I did not make a personal attack on that guy. He's in the middle of an edit war and I told the other guy to stop fighting with him. And for some reason he comes and attacks me? I don't get what this whole thing is about but Me123456789 or whatever is being really childish and I would like it if you could remove that warning. thanks
184.100.206.84 (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
You are free to remove any comment from your own talk page. If someone attacks you, the best thing to do is to either ignore it, or to remove the attack from your talk page. In any case try to stay polite. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Those weren't my edits
You recently notified me that edits I supposedly made to National Coming Out Day were removed because they were considered vandalism. I did not make those edits, nor would I ever write such offensive garbage. I'm not sure how I became linked to this incident, but I'm glad those comments were deleted. 12.131.0.2 (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, yes, this is possible. Notice the text at the bottom on your talk page. It says "This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address." The best thing you can do, is sign up for a username. It has many other advantages — see wp:ACCOUNT. Cheers and happy editing. - DVdm (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I am a registered user. I had not logged in for a few weeks, but still, my IP address should have been protected. Anyway, I'm glad it's resolved. Jessdfacts (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The BDS page is written from a anti-Israel perspective. All what i did was to neutralise the page. Please revert the changes you have made. My edit was made not to be subtle while the BDS trys to be subtle.
This may be true, but the proper thing to do first, is to go to the article talk page (Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions), explain your objections, and propose a modification to the article, in agreement with the other contributors. I have put a welcome message on your user talk page with some pointers to relevant articles, explaining how Wikipedia works. Cheers and good luck. DVdm (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Please my reply to Theroadislong so that you can understand where i am coming from. Plus you must understand that due to the high amounts of anti-semetism, Wikipedia will not allow my comments. If you are wondering where I received this information from, I just returned from a 6 week trip to Israel because I prefer to have both sides of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MYGAMEUPLAY (talk • contribs) 11:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
for now i have decided to take your advice and i have begun talking with the page creator. Thanks for your help and i wish you a good life(no sarcasm). Just remember this, i SUPPORT Israel and Arabs, but with the news are told today, It is ALWAYS pro-Arab (which pisses me off). So you must understand i took a 2 month trip to Israel to gget the real story. I suggest you do the same thing, then you might understand my Point Of View.
Ah, OK. There seems to have been (or still be) a problem with Huggle and/or its random templates. I left some messages here and here. - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. This seems nasty indeed. I think the best thing to do, is to file a little report at wp:ANI. Don't forget to notify the user on their user talk page as well. The incidents page explains how to do that with a simple template. Good luck. DVdm (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Human Rights Violations
You just un-did an edit I made on Human Rights Violations (Removing the redirect to Human Rights). I've been working with a partner on an academic project to produce a full page for Human Rights Violations. As far as I can tell, the easiest way to do that is to get rid of the redirect. Obviously for now I can leave the redirect while working on the page, but once it's finished I plan on removing the redirect, allowing the subject to stand on its own, with links back to Human Rights. There is a great amount of information on the subject that deserves a greater exploration than just a subheading. Hope that works.
DBG2011 (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, sounds like a plan. Please don't forget to write a short edit summary for all your edits. Doing so can prevent patrollers from mistaking your edits as vandalism. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
No need to remove this section — it can stay. Note that it might be a good idea to add some sources for the data to the article. That makes it less attractive to vandals. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
i have added reference about indian calculations. i have also added a link that shows scanning of r..ig veda page that has particular hyme. plz see all and consider — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drajaytripathi (talk • contribs) 13:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The external links which I have added as part of my edit are purely informational in nature and not irrelevant. Please consider going through the links before passing a judgement. The links were given to each event is happening in the festival. with in a page informing the people of a technical festival how is adding links to the events of the festival irrelevant or advertising ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasadpiyer (talk • contribs) 15:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Referring to this edit, the phrase "Techkriti has fast emerged as one of the best technical festivals of the country over the past years and now resounds as a familiar name across the colleges as well as the industry, nationwide." is unsourced and sounds like an advertisement. The phrase "The present contacts details of the core team which conducts the event can be found here" is an advertisement. This really is not allowed on Wikipedia. DVdm (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not attempting to blank the pages, unfortunately for some reason, every time I've made an addition to a page, it blanks it and doesn't post the additions I have made. 71.233.89.10 (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
What exactly is "disruptive" about my posting, aside from the accidental blanking which wasn't intentional? Is it because it's not pro-Darwinism? As for a neutral view point on this article, LOL; the article and template in question are far from being "neutral" as it is blatantly pro-Darwinism/Evolutionism and anti-Creationism/Intelligent Design. Labeling the latter as "pseudoscience" is completely inaccurate, baseless, and biased. The edits I made to the "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience" were not "disruptive" nor "non-neutral" at all. They honestly clarified the reasoning for the baseless labeling against some particular items in question. The article and template in question, themselves, violate Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy as it is clearly favoring one ideological point of view (Darwinsim/Naturalism), my edits were an attempt to rectify that hypocrisy, and as I figured, Wikipedia's resident anti-Theists pop out of the wood work to censor any opposition to Darwinism. 71.233.89.10 (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you like to unlabel certain activities as pseudoscience (as you did here), you need to go to the various corresponding article talk pages and establish strong consenses about that. If you think that indeed "the article and template in question, themselves, violate Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy", then you need to go to, for instance, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and open a case there. DVdm (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with DVdm. You have "accidental blank' two different pages regarding this subject, Template:Pseudoscience and List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Once, I could buy as an accident, but twice on two pages??? Additionally removing valid examples, adding "labeled as "pseudoscience" by naturalists hostile to the items in question" and using misleading edit summaries (ie "*Adding some more examples" while removing examples not adding them), is clearly WP:POVish and "disruptive".--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, can't help with this subject. You'll have to ask the one who is reponsible for this: your teacher. Good luck. DVdm (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
AutoCAD Article
Hello, I'm a freshman at Clemson University. In my English 103 class, we are required to work on a wikipedia article. I've been working on the AutoCAD article. I added some content about the Mobile App and added a new section containing information about the newest release. Just so you know its only our "first draft" so I will definitely be putting more information up. I'm required to ask two current Wiki users that have worked on the page for any suggestions that they may have or problems that they see with the article. I would greatly appreciate the help! Here is a link to the sandbox which has bullet points about what I plan on adding in the next week. DD-ENGL103-41 AutoCAD Sandbox Thanks! DD-ENGL103-41 (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
DVdm, whilst I appreciate your looking over Buster Keaton, I don't think it is fair of you to have removed my term "wryly". It is applicable and does not have to appear in the original - you're splitting haec verba hairs without need. There is room for style without calling it a point of view or original research or whatever it is you said about it. I object further because in your explanation you said "wryliness" which is not even a word! I'd appreciate it if you just left my good edits alone!Djathinkimacowboy (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
This issue has been clarified for me by a very helpful fellow here. So I will accept the "borderline" reason for the removal of my term. Personally I think there ought to be a Wikipedia rule about writer's style-cramping.Djathinkimacowboy20:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
We have rules about wp:original research and wp:neutrality. How ever much we would like to express our opinions and appreciations into articles, we're just not allowed to. The idea is to let the reader decide by checking the source whether the tone was wry or dry. Again, I'm very surprised that, after having been around here for more than a decade, you don't know these rules.
There is no rule that says that we are not allowed to invent new words in our edit summaries in order to express what the edits are about. I can assure you that I looked it up in two online dictionaries and, when I failed to find it, I doubted about scare quoting it, but then I decided to boldly invent it on the spot, although I now realize that I probably should have called it wryness. I'm not going to diclook (without scare quotes — no rule about inventing new words on talk pages) for that one, as I'm sure it does exist. Do correct me if I'm wrong.
Finally, I try to leave everyone's good edits alone and only touch some of the bad ones that I happen to come across, so you really have nothing to fear — on the contrary. DVdm (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Please, be gracious and assume good faith. No matter what anyone says, describing a quote as "wry" or any PROPER derivation therefrom is NOT a point of view or opinion. Lord, one would have to be barely semi-literate to fail to appreciate the wryness of the remark.
Still, I appreciate your diligence. However, I think you're being as narrow as you think I am. I know these rules perhaps better than most. I've seen them re-written and tortured over the years, for certain. Yes, I slip up as we all do - but it happens much more often that we get obsessed with editing every little thing.
You said, "...but then I decided to boldly invent it on the spot, although I now realize that I probably should have called it wryness..." and I cheer that. See, that's the spirit. The spirit I think you may be a bit uptight in dealing with others. Now you should have checked the verifiability of that made-up word! ;)
In the end, I respect you a lot. I have seen the work you have done there and in a few other spots. We writers (Wikipedia is the furthest thing from 'my life') get a bit hot about style.
Trust me, it is not a point of opinion, but one of policy that describing a quote as "wry" is a point of opinion. It can look nice on a blog but it looks ugly in an encyclopedia. DVdm (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, yes, I get it! - and still, though we shouldn't argue it further, I can direct you to someone here who agrees with us both. He favors your rendition of the point, though he can see why I worded it the way I did. Stick to the safest interpretation of the rule is what he suggested. I have respected you both in this. Djathinkimacowboy15:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
External link removed
The external Physics link removed was for a subscription service. It should be removed as suggested on the page to remove improper links!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.66.160 (talk) 08:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
If you think that a link is improper, and you decide to remove it, then by all means do so, but please provide an edit summary explaining what you are doing. You can point to for instance the relevant item in the list at wp:ELNO, like I did in this edit. Providing an edit summary decreases the probability that other editors mistake your edits for vandalism or spamming.
That said, the content pointed to with the link in question requires no subscription, but it is indeed a blog and can therefore be removed per wp:ELNO #11. So go ahead, but make sure you don't replace it with another improper link. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The article is tagged for deletion. If it is nonsense, it will be deleted. Be patient, and do not create new usernames to speed up the process. If you continue, you will get blocked. DVdm (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of link to BBC One Balloon ident filmed at Cley next the Sea in Norfolk
Hello,
I do not understand why you have deleted the video link depicting Cley next the Sea in the BBC One Balloon idents. This was not pure advertising at all, and was simply recognition of the village's proud achievement. (86.53.67.133 (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
Not as an external link. What you could try however, it to say something about what happened and then use that link as a source for the statement. I do think however that the event lacks wp:notability. I will leave that to other contributors. DVdm (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, please come over and see the talk page. It has erupted due to the harassment by user DIREKTOR, who I understand is a troublemaker. Good thing it's protected! This stuff on the talk page is frankly garbage. Now two editors are over there dancing round the issue like crazy people. Djathinkimacowboy18:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to barge in again - this article is being vandalised almost daily. I don't know where you sit in the totem pole, but is there any way we can lock this, protect it like Nikola Tesla? Djathinkimacowboy18:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I had noticed. You should probably have put it on top of the list. It might take a while before it gets handled down there... - DVdm (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, so stupid - they tell editors to put their requests at the top! How could I have missed it! (I might was well say, "How typical of me.") Djathinkimacowboy20:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
No, there was nothing wrong. I replied to user Lisa, warning her about her clearly pointy message, and at the same saying that I don't know whether you have ever pushed some here, but I clarified it anyway. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
User IP 195.194.199.50 is now causing a bit of a small stir at Roscoe Arbuckle. I noted on the IP's talk page that the IP has been warned over and over again about making what look like silly edits. Another page protection request, or do you take the wheel on this one and request a user IP block? Djathinkimacowboy19:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Claud Cockburn
Well, that was quite a famous a quotation that i didn't bother to search for a citation. Also, please use the {{Citation needed}} tag instead of undoing any edit outright. 122.176.58.109 (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.
So, quite famous or not, this citation was to be sourced by you. You can't just expect others to do your job. So, in the future, please do bother to search for citations when you add content to biographies of living person. I notice that you have done the job now. Keep up the good work. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a little bit of an issue here, I think. Suggesting that it it not OK to say "moderate" without soures, but it is OK to say "far-right" without sources does not sit well. RichFarmbrough, 19:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC).
For my revert I had based my judgment on the solid sourcing in the target article versus the unacceptable rationale expressed in the edit summary. I made another comment here. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I give you props. Oh by the way Junkers is slang for spammers keep in touch dude, if there is anything you want me to edit just messag me, okay thanks again
Why did you undo your own edit? The source is legitimate and the quote is not "taken out of context," since it's immediately cited and the full article is available.Webberkenny (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
DVdm, I need help. Nikola Tesla discussion page Would you come to the section "The lead photo's date" and mediate this? I'm not going to allow the likes of user DIREKTOR to get me in trouble! There's a history there, I'm sure you know it. He's at it again, and after this moment I am not going to acknowledge or respond. Which I ought to have done so much earlier! If you can lend a hand, I would be so obliged. Djathinkimacowboy19:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, this has been sorted out and no need to worry about the matter. My apologies, but frankly you were the first person I thought of asking. My apologies. Djathinkimacowboy21:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hah. I wish I could say that cjt is code for WP:CITEKILL, but the fact of the matter is that misspelled "citation" and accidentally hit Enter while reaching for Backspace :) --Anders Feder (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I certainly will be careful; as I do not think asking for help personally amounts to canvassing, I thought I was safe. Anyway I came to thank you for the input. Oh, I'm sorry...am I still "canvassing"? Djathinkimacowboy12:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Aha, you mean that. Well, point well taken, and I appreciate the warning. In fact, I went about deleting my couple of other posts to those who had not responded. Hope that does not end up looking bad too.
You know, I feel I can tell you, I have just about had all I can take from exerting myself here. Look what happens: the air is full of chisels. Even you felt the need to present my appeal to you on the Houdini talk page.
This niggling (not you!) and name-calling is making me ill. And please don't tell me to take a vacation. ;) This stupid Wikipedia editing used to be a hobby I liked. Djathinkimacowboy13:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Do take a vacation. It does help, specially when you begin to dislike the hobby of "stupid Wikipedia editing". - DVdm (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Sort of vacationing and idly observing Wikievents. I want to apologise to you, because I have been unnecessarily testy, because I have been rude. My statement about regretting the star I awarded you was totally out of line. Won't happen again, my word. You were helpful at the article and I was just being petulant about that as well. Back to vac!75.21.96.166 (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)SORRY! Djathinkimacowboy07:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but I have no idea what I could do with this. Anyway, please sign talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I had figured that out, but why would I do that? I have never heard of Behindwoods. What made you decide to let me and a handful of other contributors know? Are we somehow interested in Behindwoods? - DVdm (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, sorry but I stumbled upon this and couldn't help but try to clear the confusion. The above editor is seriously confused. He means to use that template in articles pertaining to Cinema of India or Tamil cinema (perhaps you edited such an article which is why he chose to inform you about this). Anywho, that template is actually useless because it the purpose of that template does not conform to WP:EL. EelamStyleZ (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, User:DVdm I have seen as you contribute to Cinema of India/Tamil cinema, so I thought it maybe useful for you. Behindwoods is local cinema news provider. This template will help generating links for the artciles published in Behindwoods. The page author can use it whenever they want to provide references from Behindwoods. Sorry for the spamming in your talk page and late reply. User:Eelamstylez77, it is for you, if you are not able to clear about the template, you should ask me instaed of giving false impression about other authors. It is not at al any polite manner you replied without any deep looking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yjenith (talk • contribs) 09:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a template to generate a direct link to the Twitter status message. You can use this template to navigate directly to the Tweet or to refer someone directly to any Tweet in your wiki. You can use this template freely wherever you need to refer any tweets/twitter users of Twitter#Features for your external references or some other places. --Jenith Michael Raj (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
It's probably not a good idea to use red warning triangles with newbies who are not malicious, just not quite "getting" it :) A friendly note with advice on how to move forward can be preferable, where the former risks frightening them off (WP:BITE is, of course, the relevant policy - I'm not accusing you of being Bite-y, but it expresses the sentiment) --Errant(chat!)09:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the AIV report for 212.85.28.40. That IP has a long block log, and I've just added a year-long stretch to it. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
We obviously cant describe each researchers contribution in the cold fusion article. Rothwell's first list has 4500 names on it. A later version only lists the 350 peer review published researchers. We cant list this on the cold fusion article but it does show how active the field exactly is. Currently people believe Rossi is doing all the work. This while he hasn't even published anything. Nothing on Wikipedia contradicts this flawed assumption.
I'm not sure about the exact criteria at this stage but before adding them to a Wikipedia list of researchers each list item should have the credentials checked out. This is going to take some time. People who have a wikipedia article that already identifies them as a cold fusion researcher would obviously be the first to approve. The gray areas need a bit of debate first.
If you cant wait you can put the article live with 4 or 5 of the 350 names on it but I thought that was a bit of a silly approach. The list on the talk page is suppose to be a photo-negative of the one on the article so that editors can easily help expand it.
I obviously cant continue now that you took over the page so I'm going to do something else. My apologies if my response is a bit slow. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I can see you are reverting IP edits. I also see in this process you ended up falsely accusing me of BLP violations, suggesting Cold fusion is a dirty word in the eyes of cold fusion researchers. I would like you to substantiate the claim or withdraw it.
I didn't even understand their point. lol Apparently they got the impression I wasn't going to source anything. What would be the fun in that? It's such a strange assumption I really didn't get it. Now it all makes sense. I just have to get used to the idea of being treated like an idiot and all will be fine. haha 84.106.26.81 (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It looks like you still don't get the point. It is not about sourcing, but about interpreting sources the wrong way (see wp:SYNTH, wp:NOR, wp:BLP). The point is that having XYZ's name in the list of authors of a publication in PQR's list of UVW-related publications, does not warrant labeling XYX as a UVW-researcher with PQR's list as a source. Try re-reading their comments with that in mind. Understand that and all will be fine. - DVdm (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Stephan Schulz, Steve Baker and TenOfAllTrades make the point that scientists who will be listed on a list of LENR researchers might lose a job/grant/tenure/Nobel Prize or might sue wikipedia.
I notice that cold fusion is avoided like the bubonic plague. This is 100% in line what the researchers in the field have been saying all along. The social pressure in the scientific community to dismiss cold fusion is so strong, mainstream scientists will flee town if a cold fusion symposium is held there in fear of catching the disease and lose their scientific life.
Of course we cannot copy/paste any external list over to the WP-list. I have already proposed criteria
Criteria for inclusion:
Has published a peer reviewed paper clearly on cold fusion / LENR
Co-authors should not be included automatically, but can be if they have consistently co-authored similar papers by the author, ie are in his research group.
Rossi's blog obviously doesn't count as peer reviewed
or has submitted papers/presentations for the annual "International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science" visible in the proceedings
or has authored a book clearly propagation the CF/LENR science.
I had a glance, but I'm not going to scrutinize it, if that is what you would like me to do. I'm not interested in the subject, and even less (!) in List-of-Pokemon-characters type articles. If you have made sure that every single person in your list would personally wholeheartedly agree that they are indeed a Pokemon character, then you might have nothing to fear, unless of course someone objects to your list as a severe case of wp:BLP-related wp:synth and wp:original research. Good luck with your list. - DVdm (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to let you know, the list was challenged for BLP while still in my userspace. Nobody responded, so I guess I did everything right. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
D, thanks for the slack you picked up at the article. I'm afraid I did that in a stupid moment of multitasking and did not bother to try to fix it. I'm glad you went in and straightened it - also I see that I misunderstood the Dawkins ref. So thanks for that. Djathinkimacowboy21:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Without screwing up the flow or altering further, I did clean up some of that grammar, which I see you simply reverted to; it did not reflect the correct expression of what occurred. For example, it was accurate but it sounded as if Edgardo had been automatically or magically made Catholic through this rite of baptism. It needs to express that it is the Catholic belief and not just stated as a fact. Also I made improvements regarding Canon Law, which is the Code of Canon Law of the Church and guides it. It needs to be emphasized that it was also the law of the land in the Papal States - and even that is incorrect because Canon Law deals exclusively with the Church, not so much with civil, common law. Djathinkimacowboy21:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Derek, sorry for the inappropriate message — I hadn't noticed the main article tag ({{main}}), my mistake. Howewer, I undid your edit again, as it contains an exact copy of the section Methods of computing square roots#Decimal (base 10). It's a good idea to mention manual computation shortly and point to the section and the algorithm in the other article. If you really would like to duplicate the entire section, the best thing would be to propose that on the article talk page, but generally it is not a good idea to copy such content between articles. The template {{main}} states: "This template is used below the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article that has been (or will be) summarised." So the idea seems to be to summarise the article/section, not to copy from it. Your edit also had undone some significant formatting edits that I had made to the article. So, if you would add somerhing about manual computation again, perhaps a short section with a wikilink to Methods of computing square roots#Decimal (base 10)? Sorry again for the message on your talk page. I have struck it. Feel free to remove it. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Source confusion
Hi you said the statement was un-sourced the source can be found at the end of the paragraph. I added the source again and see you have now removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.60.118 (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I had made a mistake. I should have read a bit further to check the source. Sorry for the confusion. - DVdm (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Time def
It seems likely Collins dictionary has changed it entry for "time" - and it does say 2011 now. See
6th down in this search
Collins: The Dictionary Meaning of time
www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3...False...1. the past, present, and future regarded as a continuous whole, temporal, (Related adjective) 2. (Physics) a quantity measuring duration, measured with ...
I must wonder why they would consider their change an improvement--JimWae (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, apparently they changed their definition. That's what I assumed. My edit summary comment was aimed at the anon who threw the present in the bin without even checking the reference. At first "sight" the new def sounds horribly wrong —first future, then now, and finally past— but then, when thinking it through it makes perfect sense after all, although it took some time before my penny dropped :-) - DVdm (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I have seen it and, from a great distance, it looks pretty good. It would be nice to have an article with this kind of content. However, I don't think that I'm sufficiently competent in the material to make (or even suggest) changes. I commented on the earlier RFC at Talk:Wikipedia because, as you probably have noticed, I am interested in the "correct" interpretation of wp:CIRCULAR under/over wp:PRIMARY. I will certainly keep an eye open and I wish you good luck. Cheers & keep cool! - DVdm (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for undoing all the damage that the Mr. Curious' IP address has done to my talk page and user page. It was very kind of you. :) It's such a shame that they will not leave me alone on wikia and Youtube. But thanks for undoing the damage once again. :)--Brainiac Adam (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Perhaps the edit summary of this edit was not a good idea. When I noticed you making it, I made a bet with myself about how many days it would take before Curious would return. I won that bet :-) - The only way to possibly get rid of a stalker is by consequently and totally ignoring them. Never address them or reply to them directly or indirectly, always ignore. I'm sure that your user page and your talk page is on quite some people's watchlists, so you don't have to worry — harassment will be dealt with. Cheers & Cool! - DVdm (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Time in New Age beliefs
Thanks for your vigilance about the time articles... lol... And please kindly elaborate a bit on my talk page (I added a few questions there). -- Nazar (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Booknotes was a high quality interview program that interviews leading authors on topics directly relevant to the articles in question. There is no way it violates any of the WP:ELNO restrictions. So please don't delete them. The series of 800 hourlong interviews is a major RS for Wiki users. Many of the people interviewed won the Pulitzer and other major prizes. Pulitzer Prize winning author David Halberstam praised the series because it "connects serious writers in a highly-civilized way to serious readers out there." Brian Lamb did most of the interviews, for which he was awarded the National Humanities Medal. and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The American Historical Association awarded Lamb the 2004 Theodore Roosevelt-Woodrow Wilson Award "for extraordinary contributions to the study, teaching, and public understanding of history." High honors indeed. Rjensen (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree. These external links are in the most direct violation of wp:ELNO, item 13:
13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked.
These external links are a schoolbook example of links to be avoided. If such a link has something important to contribute to an article, then a short mention "about that something" should be integrated in the text body of the article, with a properly templated <ref>{{cite web |...}}</ref> reference where the link can be specified as a URL-parameter. - DVdm (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
These are classic examples of good useful links that follow the rules. For example you deleted the one hour discussion by Seymour Martin Lipset entirely devoted to American Exceptionalism, in the article on American exceptionalism! Can't get more appropriate than that. Likewise hourlong discussions by major biographers of people like James Madison being in the Madison article. Likewise the memoir by the ganddaughter of the life of Yitzhak Rabin belongs in the article on Yitzhak Rabin. The flaw is asserting only indirectly related when that is simply false. They are all directly related. If after listening to the program you think it's inappropriate, then bring it up on the talk page because other editors disagree with you. Rjensen (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
As I said, the site is not directly related to the article's subject—something at the site may be highly relevant, but the site as a whole is not. Just integrate something into the article and use the site as a reference. See Wikipedia:External links:
This guideline concerns external links that are notcitations to sources supporting article content. If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it. Guidelines for sourcing, which includes external links used as citations, are discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources.
So as an external link the site could probably be used without a problem in the article Booknotes only.
I have been working on integration of Booknotes links into pertinent articles as a sideline project for some time, and I agree with the concept of not having a contest to see how big of a collection of links you can have for each article. I can understand that perhaps the Einstein article is lengthy enough that you would not want to include every biography (although I think that a further resource to Einstein article readers is being lost now, but I will concede that one). However - You also deleted the link I made on the page for Eleanor Clift, which led to a one-hour, serious interview with her and her husband about a book they wrote together. How is that an appropriate deletion? Here is an excerpt from point #13: If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked. - How is the Eleanor Clift article and link not covered under the auspices of that policy, not to mention being a common sense good resource to have? I think these are valuable links to have, and just because adding the link for the Einstein article may have been iffy on my part, I would hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Please feel free to communicate further about this. KConWiki (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, now I see that it looks like the specific interview links were removed from a couple of dozen articles at one fell swoop. I need to ask, how closely did you look at the links that you removed? KConWiki (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I looked at the article subjects and I looked at the website. None of the article subjects is directly related to the website. Amazon sells excellent books on thousands of subjects for which we have articles, and we don't put Amazon's book entries in these article's external links sections — that would be spamming. The New York Times has excellent articles on, and interviews about, thousands of subjects for which we have articles, and we don't put The New York Times in these article's external links sections — that would be spamming. Booknotes might have a superb collection of excellent interviews on our article subjects, but putting Booknotes in these article external links sections amounts to spamming. Just read the guideline. It was specially designed to avoid the flooding of the external links sections with collections of stuff about the subjects. The solution is very simple. See what we did at Artificial gravity and User talk:Otolith2#External links to be avoided. DVdm (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
One small point here: Amazon is a primarily an e-commerce site (see WP:ELNO item 15) but the Booknotes website is primarily an informational one; in each case, the full interview is available free of charge. Moreover, surely a link to a specific interview cannot be considered a "collection of stuff". WWB Too (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
WWB Too, no, of course a link to a specific interview cannot be considered a "collection of stuff", but Booknotes is a collection of stuff, and that is the entire point of the guideline - please read it more carefully. Bookstores as an external link is just not directly related to the article subject. - DVdm (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
If a link is made to the top level of the Booknotes site, I would agree with you. When the links go to a specific page on the website, I do not. It sounds to me like you are penalizing Booknotes for being a useful resource on many topics, which is just silly. WWB Too (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
As for the first part of your comment, this is probably where our opinions diverge. As for the second part, I'm not penalising Booknotes. That would be silly indeed. - DVdm (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
As to the first part of my comment, you've already agreed that "a specific interview cannot be a 'collection of stuff'" so it should naturally follow that a link to a specific, relevant interview is not the sort of link discouraged by WP:ELNO. And with all due respect, this debate is silly. WWB Too (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Having reviewed a handful of these deletions, I'm in agreement with Rjensen and KConWiki; DVdm, I'm afraid you're deleting unique and highly relevant information. I can't see why, for example, an in-depth interview with Fox Butterfield should be removed from the Wikipedia article about Fox Butterfield.
DVdm, you've identified items 1, 11 and 13 from WP:ELNO as guideline-based justifications, but I'm afraid I disagree on all three points. Per item 1, surely these count as a "unique resource"; if a topical interview on a well-regarded, nationally-broadcast television series is not a unique resource, what is? Item 11 discourages linking to "blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority"; C-SPAN's Booknotes is none of the first three but certainly is the fourth. Finally, item 13 specifically allows the sort of material you are deleting: "If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked." As far as I have seen, these links were not made to the top-level of the Booknotes website, but to the specific interviews.
For these reasons, and those outlined by KConWiki and Rjensen, I believe these ELs should all be reinstated. (In the spirit of disclosure: I am a consultant to C-SPAN, and I have arrived upon this page at KConWiki's request; however, I don't think either fact detracts from the points I've made here.) Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
My deep linked example is a link integrated in the text. This one is the same link listed in the External links section, which is what the guideline is about. I have no idea how to explain it more clearly. - DVdm (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I see. Well, it so happens the very first sentence of the WP:EL guideline discourages what you recommend: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article." So KConWiki's usage was in fact the more correct. WWB Too (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
[outdent] spamming? nonsense. a meaningful link to a useful high quality resource is exactly what makes the Wikipedia "External Link" sections work well. Editors who make the links should be congratulated. DVdm says it's easy to write a sentence in the article in lieu of a link--he might try that and see just how "easy" it is compared to using the "External Link" section, which is the appropriate place the great majority of Wiki editors actually use to put an an external link. Rjensen (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: Reply is to DVdm above; outdented following edit conflict. Now, WP:LINKSPAM says "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." Perhaps this is a flawed guideline, as it speaks to editor motivations rather than the resulting content. However, in each of the cases reviewed, I believe the linked interviews provided relevant information.
And I don't think you disagree, since you're encouraging the interviews be used to add more information. Well, I'd be very happy to see any one of these interviews used to support specific additions to the page. But it's not that easy—in each case it would take time to watch the interview, identify useful material, write it, cite it and make the edits. Moreover, we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of the good, and Wikipedia is always a work in progress.
Meanwhile, not that Wikipedia is necessarily a reliable source (nervous laughter) but its definition of "deep linking", as you link, reads: [D]eep linking is making a hyperlink that points to a specific page or image on a website, instead of that website's main or home page. That describes each of the links you have removed perfectly; I'm not certain I follow the distinction you are trying to make, and in any case outright deletion shouldn't be the first resort. WWB Too (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, let me point out (below) that the existing External Links (not including Booknotes) on the Einstein article (which was the original one in question) includes links to the FBI, Life Magazine, the Nobel Prize website, The History Channel, PBS/WGBH, an MIT course that also covered Oppenheimer and Feynman, and an article by Einstein about Socialism. Again, I will concede that perhaps the links section for the Einstein article needs to be patrolled against getting too crowded (due to the length and breadth of the article) but the same is not a particular concern for Eleanor Clift, Ted Sorenson, etc. KConWiki (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there's probably a lot of improper external links there. I just don't think that a section in bad shape should be put in an even worse shape.
And of course I still don't see what is so hard to understand about the guideline as amply quoted above. Our interpretations seem to be collide. Anyway, time for some Real-life Living now. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Cheers and happy holidays to you as well; One thing that I do suggest is that you pick one (or more) of the interviews that looks like it might interest you, and when you have an hour to spare, to watch it. I think that (even if it does not change your opinion on this matter) you will find it a rewarding experience. KConWiki (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Drawn here by my own revert of the link being added to Albert Einstein before I was made aware of this discussion I think any point I might raise has been discussed already but it's still worth me restating my reasons for removing the link, expanding on my edit summary. The link in question's main problem is it is only incidentally on the topic: the main topic of the linked page is the book, not Albert Einstein. So it clearly fails #13 of WP:ELNO. Also a video is far less useful as a link as it requires both more time and special software for users to view. There is a transcript but it's clearly not meant to be read, being poorly formatted and stuck in a narrow frame. But the main reason is #13 of the reasons to exclude links.
I agree the section is already too long but just because there are bad links already is not a reason to add more – quite the opposite. I have in the past pared back overlong external links sections in articles, but I'm happier to do this in other topic areas and leave this to other editors who know this subject better.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds11:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
edit "Cold Fusion" Nine Refefences to Pathological Science Should Be Moved to Historical Footnotes
To improve the article:
1) Wiki needs to view it as science.
2) Wiki needs to recognize which scientific journals are utilized and sourced by scientists in this field of physics.
I predict a tremendous increase in the readability of the article.
Query to the scientific community: To the Directors of Physics Departments,
LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear or Lattice Enabled Nuclear; historically misnamed "Cold Fusion"
1) Is this science or pathological science?
2) Do you offer a class in this discipline? If so, please provide information.
3) Are you developing a curriculum of this science? If so, when will you offer it?
4) What peer review journals do you utilize or source in this field?
DVdm, P>S> 1) Any suggestions or criticisms before I move forward with this? 2) Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wikipedia forum on Cold Fusion may value? Thank you for your time, Gregory Goble gbgoble@gmail.com (415) 724-6702--Gregory Goble (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
The only useful suggestions I have at this point, is that you follow some of the links in the welcome message on your talk page, and that you take the suggestions from the other contributors to that article seriously. Happy reading and editing, and good luck. - DVdm (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Then please, by all means explain the rules minus the spanking! In any case, I extend my hand to you, because in most other ways you were quite right to indicate the issue as you did do.Djathinkimacowboy(yell)02:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
POV
How is global security a pov source? in fact why haven't you warned the other user for 3rv rule? I will remove your warning if you pick and choose who to warn at your leisure 109.150.60.235 (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe that source is fine I have been on it several times now and I have kaspersky internet security I have sent them the link and they will investigate your claims 109.150.60.235 (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I get a popup telling me that my PC is unsafe, a typical malware installation trap, usually not detected by standard antivirus software. Be very careful. - DVdm (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
He He I will take your word for it that article is pov as it is I guess but I will definately send Kaspersky a log about this pop up your getting cheers 109.150.60.235 (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
